Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and David NuttallFriday 24th March 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Act 2017 View all Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 24 March 2017 - (24 Mar 2017)
Mr Chope
In moving amendment 2, we are mindful that this is a week in which there has been an attack on our parliamentary democracy, and we mourn Keith Palmer and the others who were the victims of that terrorist. This Bill and these amendments deal not with parliamentary democracy, but with local democracy, and their purpose is to strengthen further our local democracy in the United Kingdom.
I will also speak to amendments 3 and 4, which extend the range of individuals who are able to benefit from the powers under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014—my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) is seeking to achieve that in her Bill. I shall also speak to amendments 5, 6, 7 and 9, which look in detail at what we mean by the expression “journalist” in clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has an amendment dealing with the definition of journalistic material, which I shall leave him to address.
Amendment 9 deals with the arrangements for exercising the right to inspect, and amendment 11 would extend the period within which such rights can be exercised beyond 30 days. Amendment 12 would enable documents, which are claimed to be commercially confidential, to be inspected but not copied. Amendment 13 would extend the right to inspect past contracts, and amendment 14 would leave the definition of commercial confidentiality unaltered in common law. Finally, amendment 10, which is arguably the most radical of these amendments, would extend the right of inspection beyond local government to the audit of accounts of any health service body as defined in the 2014 Act.
It will be obvious from that brief summary that all the amendments are faithful to the long title of the Bill, which is to extend public access to certain local audit documents under section 26 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
My amendments are also inspired by recent experiences of how secrecy in local government is undermining the ability of members of the public properly to scrutinise what is happening and to hold councils to account. They also seek to address some of the issues raised on Second Reading on 25 November.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
My hon. Friend touches on the Second Reading debate, which is something that I hope to address in my remarks later today. Does he share my concern that the matters that were raised on Second Reading were not addressed when this Bill was in Committee?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is on to a good point. On Second Reading, quite a lot of references were made to the fact that we would discuss matters in Committee. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said that if he was put on the Committee, he would like to raise this and that as an amendment, but he was never put on the Committee. If the records are correct, the Committee stage lasted for all of 21 minutes. I do not think that there could have been proper scrutiny of the Bill. None the less, there were some interesting remarks made in Committee, some of which I shall refer to shortly.
Mr Nuttall
The whole Bill arises from the problem of defining terms. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to exactly what constitutes a “politician”? For example, does it include someone who is a candidate in an election, or only an elected politician?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend has tried, probably very successfully, to torpedo my amendment. I accept the implied, or even indeed the express, criticism that he has articulated. However, I would fall back on the general common-law interpretation of “politician”, which is probably the best way of dealing with that, without specifically having to define it in the amendment.
Amendment 4 would clarify the law by making it clear that “persons interested” also includes non-domestic ratepayers. I raise that issue because it was the focus of the court case of R. (on the application of HTV Ltd) v. Bristol City Council, reported at EWHC 1219. Paragraph 48 of the judgment of Mr Justice Elias on 14 May 2004 said that he had
“reached the conclusion that the interest which the claimant has as a non-domestic ratepayer is sufficient to bring it within the concept of ‘persons interested’.”
In that case, Bristol City Council had argued to the contrary, citing in support the changes to non-domestic rate legislation in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. With forthcoming changes—the introduction of the 100% retention of business rates, and the pooling of business rates across local authorities—it is worth using this opportunity to clarify and put on the record that the existing legislation should expressly incorporate the rights of non-domestic ratepayers. That is the background to amendment 4.
Amendments 5 to 7 are alternative ways of limiting the term “journalist” in the Bill to real journalists. It is noteworthy that section 1(4)(c) of the 1960 Act provides that
“duly accredited representatives of newspapers attending for the purpose of reporting the proceedings for those newspapers shall…be afforded reasonable facilities”.
The National Union of Journalists website sets out what is needed to establish that someone is an accredited journalist. An accredited journalist must have
“Employer Identification: Business card, employer I.D. badge, or letter of assignment on corporate letterhead. (Letterhead must identify media outlet name, address and phone)”
and
“Proof of Assignment: Sample by-lined article published within the past 6-months, or current masthead that includes the reporters name & title, or official letter of assignment from a media outlet.”
Those are necessary, for example, for a person to be admitted to a press conference as an accredited journalist. It seems to me that if we are to extend such rights to journalists, we should encourage those journalists to be accredited, rather than amateur journalists.
Mr Chope
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but why should we, to maximise the number of people who have access, distort the meaning of “journalist” by saying that any member of the public can describe themselves as a journalist and thereby come within the terms of the Bill, rather than make it clear that we want to include all members of the public? But if we are talking about journalists, we owe it to them to try to maintain a standard for professional and accredited journalists.
Mr Nuttall
Has my hon. Friend noted the title of clause 1: “Inspection of accounting records by journalists and citizen journalists”? I hope, when I come on to my amendment, he will see that I have gone in exactly the opposite direction: rather than try to narrow the definition of journalist, I am trying to widen it.
Mr Chope
That is probably why I have not sought to address my hon. Friend’s amendment. I am sorry that we cannot reach a consensus on this group of amendments, although there does seem to be a pretty strong consensus on the earlier amendments.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the NUJ has a code of conduct.
Mr Chope
I would indeed—absolutely. Editors are included in the wider definition of “journalist”. The hon. Lady makes a good point.
The NUJ code of conduct sets out 12 principles by which its journalists are expected to abide. I will not tell the House about them all, but, for example, one is to avoid plagiarism. Another is to resist threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and not to produce any material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race and so on. The most important of all is for journalists to do their utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies and to distinguish between fact and opinion—although that is not something we always find with journalists.
Mr Nuttall
Before my hon. Friend moves on, amendments 5, 6 and 7 have been tabled as alternatives—we cannot adopt all three. Will he let the House know which of the three alternatives he personally prefers?
Mr Chope
Of those three, I prefer amendment 5 on accreditation, because “accredited journalist” is a well-understood expression. As I said earlier, it is even referred to in statute, such as in the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960.
Amendment 8 seeks to ensure that we do not define “journalist” in the Bill. The Office for National Statistics lists a series of roles defined as “journalist”. These form the single occupational group of journalists and newspaper and periodical editors—including the editor of the London Evening Standard.
Amendment 9 would ensure that any person making an inspection under section 26(1) of the 2014 Act could do so at all reasonable times and without payment. If section 26 is to achieve the Government’s purpose, we need to ensure that this provision is included, otherwise it would be too easy for the objectives of transparency and accountability to be frustrated. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, said:
“In 2015-16, it would seem that local electors exercised their rights over a total of 11,000 bodies only around 65 times.”––[Official Report, Local Audit (Public Access to Documents) Public Bill Committee, 7 April 2017; c. 5.]
They did so under section 25, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that extending the same rights to section 26 applicants would be unduly burdensome and too expensive.
Mr Nuttall
Ah, a dilemma. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is making a fascinating contribution. Although “citizen journalist” is referred to in the rubric of clause 1, there is no definition of it; there is only a definition of “journalist”. Does he agree that that rather suggests that there was originally other material in clause 1 that was cut out as a result of negotiations between our hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and the Department, and that the Department failed to observe that there was no longer any definition of “citizen journalist” and amend the Bill accordingly?
Mr Nuttall
There may be some reason for why there is no definition of “citizen journalist” in the Bill, but I must admit that I am unaware of what that reason might be. What I can say, before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), is that the Bill’s explanatory notes state in paragraph 4:
“Accordingly, we are seeking to extend the definition of ‘any persons interested’ in section 26(1) of the Act”—
the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014—
“to include journalists, including ‘citizen journalists’”.
Crucially, paragraph 4 goes on to state that “citizen journalists” means
“bloggers and others who scrutinise local authorities but who may not be accredited members of the press to enable them to access a wider range of accounting material in order to report and publish their findings so that it is available to local electors in an area, thus providing them with information that will enable them to better hold their local council to account.”
Who can disagree with that? It seems an entirely laudable aim, and it is rather disappointing that that laudable aim was not carried through on to the face of the Bill. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend says that there is no ambiguity, but clause 1’s title refers to “citizen journalists”, yet the clause contents refer only to “journalists”, not to “citizen journalists”. That creates confusion, does it not? Why are we not just talking about journalists and then defining “journalists” in subsection (3)?
Mr Nuttall
To be fair, my amendment does not refer to “citizen journalists”—only the clause title does, although the term is used in the notes and the briefings. With hindsight, I think this should be deleted from the clause title, because it leads people down a cul-de-sac, as they will think a bit is missing from the Bill and will wonder where the definition of “citizen journalists” is. As I said, I decided that rather than trying to define that, it would be better to extend the existing definition of “a journalist”. Perhaps it would have been better to define—somehow— what a “citizen journalist” is, but I was conscious that a number of colleagues objected on Second Reading to the reference to “citizen”, because we are all subjects of Her Majesty. For that reason, I felt it was not sensible to incorporate the term “citizen journalists” in legislation, and I would prefer it if those words were struck from the Bill.
My amendment deals with whether payment being made for a newspaper or magazine, or for access to a website, should affect the situation. I have made it clear that that should have no bearing on whether someone, whether or not a citizen journalist, should have the right to access the accounts of their local council or other body covered by this legislation. The Bill makes it clear that it matters not whether the journalist is paid or unpaid, but I thought it was equally important to clarify this issue about payment to access the site.
Mr Chope
To reinforce that point on clinical commissioning groups, CCGs have a veto over the use of procedures for people living within their areas. Those vetoes are often controversial and are justified on the basis of cost. If people cannot examine the cost bases of decisions, it is difficult to hold CCGs to account.
Mr Nuttall
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There would be considerable interest from local residents in accessing all the accounts of all health service bodies.
My hon. Friend’s amendment 11 would extend the period in which inspections can be carried out beyond 30 days. I have heard no explanation as to why the period is 30 days and not 60, 25 or another number. I entirely agree that no logical reason has been advanced as to why we should have a 30-day limit. I would support him on the amendment.
Amendments 12, 13 and 14 are more technical amendments dealing with commercial confidentiality. I welcome amendment 13 and recommend it to the House. The fact that something was commercially sensitive in the past should not prevent the accounts and associated paperwork from being inspected now.
Those are my views on my hon. Friend’s amendments, but I reiterate that I commend my amendment 1 to the House. I hope this is not the case, but if the amendment is opposed, that will draw into question everything said about the Bill’s extending access to a wider number of people and giving information to the public. I have sought only to put in the Bill what the explanatory notes say the Bill is about.
At the very least, if for whatever reason my amendment does not find favour with the promoter of the Bill, I would first be interested to know why. Secondly, the public would be suspicious of the Bill. Let us not forget that the Bill was brought before the House because the initial Acts were defective. I advise the House to be wary of any arguments advanced by the Government against my amendment, because Governments of various hues down the years have led us to the position we are in this morning. I have attempted to be clear and open. One can argue over individual words, but I submit to the House that my amendment is perfectly clear. It seeks to give clarity to the phrase “citizen journalist”, which, whether we like it or not, appears in the heading of clause 1. I commend my amendment to the House.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who have given a compelling and comprehensive account of their amendments. I rise to adjudicate between them. It is a rare occurrence when my two hon. Friends come at things from slightly different perspectives, but I sense that they have their differences on the Bill. I will do my best to be fair to their amendments in my adjudication.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North in congratulating the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), on getting her Bill to this stage. It is a good Bill, but if it were to incorporate some of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Bury North, it would be a better Bill. The whole purpose of the Report stage is to try to improve a Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is an excellent Minister, and I hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills have listened carefully to my hon. Friends, and that they appreciate, on reflection, that the Bill could be better. I will try to set out which of the amendments the Minister and my hon. Friend should be minded to accept. If they are minded not to accept them, I encourage my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Bury North to consider pressing them to a Division to test the will of the House.
My hon. Friends have made compelling cases for some but not all of their amendments, which is where I will focus my attention. Amendment 2 is the lead amendment in the group—rightly so, in many respects. It is my contention that it is the most powerful amendment in the group and if my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is tempted to press any of his amendments to a Division, I hope he focuses his attention on amendment 2, which states:
“Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out from ‘after’ to the end of the subsection and insert ‘any members of the public who are registered to vote in local elections in the United Kingdom’”.
In simple terms, my hon. Friend is basically saying that everybody in the country should have a right to know what is going on in local authorities. His compelling case was based on what is happening in his local authority and the neighbouring authority in Bournemouth. Clearly—it seems obvious to me—if two local authorities are potentially merging, a member of the public in one should have the absolute right to full access to all the information from the other to assess whether it is in their best interests for the merger to go ahead. Without access to the information, how on earth can they be in a position to make that judgment? That completely flies in the face of democracy.
It would be perverse in many respects if, in respect of my hon. Friend’s local authority area, the editor of the Evening Standard, who was mentioned earlier, was able to access the documents relating to his neighbouring council by virtue of being a journalist—a fine and leading one, at that, as the editor of a prestigious newspaper—but my hon. Friend’s local residents were unable to get the same information. That would surely be a perverse outcome, and it cannot really be the one envisaged when the Bill was in its infancy. I do not see what possible argument there could be against his amendment. If we believe that, in extending transparency, local authorities can rightly be held to account and the public can have greater awareness of what is going on, why do we not give them all the opportunity to see the information for themselves rather than relying on journalists to do the job for them?
I agree with the principle of extending the range of people who have access to these documents. However, the problem is that this proposal, while a step in the right direction, is not sufficient because, as we all know, the newspaper industry, and local newspapers in particular, are going through a pretty torrid time financially at the moment—I do not think there is any secret about that. With things moving on to the internet, newspapers find it very difficult to adjust and to monetise their content. We therefore tend to find in many local areas that, unfortunately, despite the best efforts of local newspaper groups, they are not increasing the number of journalists who would get access to all these documents and go through them with a fine-tooth comb; they are actually shedding journalists, and they are being spread more thinly. It is slightly naive to hope that, on the back of having given local journalists access to this information, all this stuff will suddenly be in the public domain, because I am not entirely sure that the journalistic trade has the capacity to do that. We will therefore be enabling something that is very worth while but which may not happen in practice. If we want this information to be in the public domain so that the public are able to hold local authorities to account, we cannot just rely on journalists because it is difficult to see how they will have the capacity. We have to allow the public to do it themselves.
I do not see why anybody should not be able to have access to this information. In practice, the chances of somebody in Shipley gratuitously showing an interest in the local authority in Christchurch are very remote. Nobody is going to be inundated with requests for that kind of scrutiny, but residents in Christchurch may well want to know what is happening in Bournemouth, which is just down the road, and they should absolutely have the right to inspect and see whether the council is behaving in the way it should. I was rather shocked to hear the allegations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the conflicts of interest of the leader of Bournemouth Council. Without going over the detail myself, it certainly did not sound very good. It is absolutely right that local residents in adjoining authorities should be able to know what is going on.
I genuinely do not see why my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills or the Minister would want to resist this greater transparency and scrutiny, because surely that is the whole purpose of the Bill. In his amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is, in effect, taking the Bill to its logical conclusion. I am pretty sure that if we do not do this now, there will be another private Member’s Bill further down the road introducing the measures that he proposes, because there is a clear logic to what he is trying to achieve. I believe in transparency, and I think it is very difficult to argue against it. If we are to go down the route of transparency, let us have full transparency so that nobody can claim that they did not have an opportunity to access any detailed information that they wanted to see.
Mr Nuttall
I agree with my hon. Friend that the new arrival on the newspaper scene in his constituency is good news. Does he know whether the newspaper in question, being a new arrival, is making use of the new breed of citizen journalists we have been discussing?
Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and David Nuttall(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nuttall
In truth I do not know whether they gave such examples, but I think that the ruling put future deportations at risk. Understandably, it will only serve to increase the sense of frustration that so many of our fellow citizens feel at how powerless this country now is to keep out convicted criminals.
Mr Nuttall
That provision already seems to have run into the quicksand, if I can put it like that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley pointed out regarding the UK Borders Act 2007, despite the Home Office’s latest plan—at least it is trying to do something, to be fair to it—the will of elected Members of this House has yet again been frustrated by the judiciary, who seem to think they know better than those of us who represent our constituents.
Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and David Nuttall(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend says that he is a great man, and I am sure he is. His time in this House happened to coincide with a time when I was not a Member of Parliament, so I do not know him very well. In the other place on Monday, he said in answer to a question from another great man, whom I do know, Lord Green of Deddington, that
“the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and others have been working hard…to increase the discomfort for those who are in this country illegally.”
What an extraordinary use of words—
Mr Chope
Discomfort! What did the Minister have in mind when he referred to discomfort? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who is on the Front Bench today, will be able to explain what was meant by that term. It suggests someone who might have a mild medical condition.
Equally inadequate was Lord Bates’ reply when he was asked
“what difference do the Government estimate that the Prime Minister’s so-called EU reforms will make to the figures”?
Lord Green had stated earlier that migration levels could lead to
“an increase in our population of half a million every year, of which 75% will be due to future immigration”.
The Minister, Lord Bates, accepted that Lord Green had been
“correct in saying that if you use the statistical data available to forecast, you arrive at roughly the numbers he referred to.”
He accepted the premise of the question, but when he was asked what the effect would be of the so-called reforms that the Prime Minister came back with following the renegotiations, he said:
“Of course, we must see what effect they will have, going forward.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 February 2016; Vol. 769, c. 576.]
If that is not an imprecise statement on what are being bandied around as essentially good reforms that will transform the status of our relationship with the European Union, I do not know what is. It is an extraordinarily vague response to a very precise question. The Government keep saying that our relationship with the European Union will be debated on the facts, but they cannot even bring any facts to bear in answer to that precise question.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to reduce illegal immigration by identifying, prosecuting and deporting those already here illegally and deterring others who might be planning to come here illegally. How big is the problem that the Bill seeks to address? The Government have very little idea how many foreign nationals are in this country illegally, or so they say. They certainly refuse to gather any data to inform the debate, because of the embarrassment that that would cause. I have some figures that have been produced by the House of Commons Library, and they basically show that the Government have no idea how many illegal migrants there are here. The most recent studies are more than 10 years old, but the figure then was in a range between 300,000 and 700,000. That was 10 years ago, so what would the figure be now? In my submission, it must be well in excess of 1 million.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the Government’s trumpeting of the now more widespread use of exit checks, it ought to be relatively simple to ascertain the number of illegals who are in this country by looking at how many have been identified by the exit checks as having left the country and who the records show were not even supposed to be here in the first place?
Mr Chope
That is a very intelligent suggestion, and I wish I had thought of it. I hope that the Minister will take it on board. Many other straws have been put into the wind to try to work out what is happening, but my hon. Friend’s suggestion would provide a good way forward. It would give us at least some idea of the figures. One of the problems is that many of the people who are already here illegally do not have any documents. They do not have passports, so I am not sure that they would wish to exit the country using authorised routes. Notwithstanding that problem, however, there is a lot in what my hon. Friend has said.
Whatever the number of illegal immigrants in this country might be, they are certainly continuing to arrive in record numbers. We know that 1.1 million came into the European Union last year. In January 2016, the rate at which people were crossing the Aegean and arriving in Greece from Turkey was around 1,300 a day, compared with around 1,300 in the whole of the month of January in 2015. The numbers are increasing exponentially. I had the opportunity to see this with my own eyes on the isle of Kos last October, and I could see that this was a really big business being organised by criminal gangs across Europe and beyond.
This brings me to the report published last month by Europol entitled “Migrant smuggling in the EU”. The report points to the fact that many more than 100,000 migrants entered the United Kingdom illegally last year. It does not give a precise figure, but the implication is that the figure was higher than 100,000. It also states that more than 900,000 of the 1 million migrants who entered the EU last year used the services of criminal groups of people smugglers who were heavily connected to organised crime. It identifies the UK, Germany and Sweden as the three preferred destination countries and makes it clear that almost all migrants eventually reach their chosen destination, undertaking what the report describes as “secondary movements”. London and Calais are identified as being among the
“main criminal hotspots for intra-EU movements”.
The Europol report refers to the main countries in which suspects operate. It states that criminal suspects born in Bulgaria, Hungary, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Syria and Turkey concentrate a high proportion of their activities in the United Kingdom. It refers to document counterfeiting having increased significantly, to corruption being rife and to migrant smuggling routes and networks being used to infiltrate potential terrorists, which we know sadly happened during the Paris attacks last November.
The report states that the EU needs to be firm with those who do not need protection, who pose a security risk or who refuse to co-operate with the asylum process. However, we know that that is not happening at all. We now have a system of hotspots that is designed to ensure the rapid return of those without a legitimate asylum case, but again that is not happening.
Another indication of the number of people who may be here illegally came in December 2013, when, following a claim in 2010 that the Government did not have any information on this matter, the Government issued the publication, “Sustaining services, ensuring fairness: Government response to the consultation on migrant access and their financial contribution to NHS provision in England”.
Just as a side issue, let me say that we saw in the papers yesterday that there is a great imbalance between the amount of money that our country pays out to EU countries in respect of the healthcare of British citizens in Europe compared with the amount that we charge European citizens using our health service here.
The NHS document suggested that, at any one time in England, there are about 2.5 million overseas visitors and migrants, of whom 450,000 are from the European economic area, and about 580,000 are irregulars, who include failed asylum seekers liable to removal, people who have overstayed their visas and illegal migrants. Even back then—in 2013—the health service statistics suggested that there were the best part of 600,000 people here.
Earlier today, courtesy of the Mail Online, I listened to what the Home Secretary said to the Conservative party conference in 2014 about the determination of herself and the Government to reduce the number of appeal rights and the number of appeals by foreign criminals against removal from our country. At that stage, she said that there were 70,000 appeals and that she would halve that number by reducing the number of appeal rights from 17 to four. She rightly referred to the abuse of article 8 and the emphasis on foreign criminals and illegal immigrants trying to rely on family connections. At the outset of her speech, she said that she was going to extend the number of “deport first, hear appeals later” cases.
It was with some dismay that I read, on 28 February, in the Mail on Sunday that a Romanian rapist, who had been removed from Britain, had been allowed back in by judges who ruled that his fast-track deportation broke EU law and breached his human rights. This was a person who had been convicted in Romania of rape. He had come to this country illegally, stayed in this country illegally and then, when the rules changed for Romania to join the European Union, he was able to stay here as an EU citizen. The Government have always said that they wish to maintain control of our borders so that we do not have to tolerate criminals from the rest of the EU in our country. It only came to light that that person had a criminal record in Romania when he was convicted of a drink-drive offence. Even in a case as strong as that, the courts have intervened to prevent him from being deported from this country.
The same article refers to another case in which a violent Slovakian sent home under the deport first rule had won the right to return to the United Kingdom for his appeal hearing. The Upper Tribunal ruled that it was unlawful for the Home Office to refuse Roman Kasicky permission on security grounds. The Home Office had said:
“The UK will seek to deport any EU national whose conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat.”
The only problem is that, under our present arrangements with the European Union, we are incapable of being able to deliver on that intent. The only way, in my submission, that we will ever be able to deliver on it is by leaving the European Union, and that is increasingly the conclusion to which people are coming.
In 2014, the Prime Minister said that he recognised that this was a really serious issue, that we needed to take control of our borders, that we needed to reduce the levels of migration to the tens of thousands and that he was going to secure that through fundamental reform of the European Union. There has not been fundamental reform of the European Union; in fact there has been no reform at all. What has happened is that we have a very modest reform of our relationship with the European Union, subject to all the provisos about enforceability and the supremacy of the European Court of Justice. Without fundamental reform, we cannot do anything about these illegal people from the European Union, as exemplified by the case to which I have just referred.
My Bill would cover not just those from the European Union, but illegal migrants more generally. If there are 1 million-plus illegal migrants in this country at the moment, this Bill would enable the Government to get to grips with the matter and to get the authorities working on it. If we got tough with illegal migrants in our country, the people smugglers would divert them away from the United Kingdom, as they always try to use the weakest points of entry. Apart from the weakness of our enforcement and detection procedures, one of the perverse incentives for people to come to the United Kingdom is that we do not have a requirement that people should have identity cards. I do not think that we should have such a requirement, but the fact that we do not have it means that people who are illegal migrants can lie low here for years and years and we do not know anything about them. They come to light only when they are convicted of an offence, and by then we are told that they have been here for too long and we cannot get rid of them.
This is a mega crisis in immigration. I proposed this Bill more in hope than in expectation. None the less, I hope that, at the very least, the Minister will have the opportunity to explain how, if the people decide to stay in the European Union on 23 June, all these serious issues will be sorted out.
Hospital Parking Charges (Exemption for Carers) Bill
Debate between Christopher Chope and David Nuttall(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nuttall
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we have a solution. It does not say that on my copy. I must have a first edition, and it might be more valuable! It is priced at £3, but now we have discovered that it is a rare first edition, it might be worth a lot more. I am willing to raffle it and donate the proceeds to Carers UK. I am glad that the matter has been corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry if I inadvertently addressed my comments to you personally. I was not trying to suggest that you had had any involvement in the preparation of the Bill.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). Like many speakers, she made some good points, but I am not sure that the conclusions she drew from her analysis were the correct ones. We are all full of admiration for the people who do the caring—the carers—across our country, some 6 million of them. If we want to help them more than we already do, we should do it in a general way rather than by supplying free benefits in kind in specific areas, because that inevitably creates a distortion in the marketplace. The hon. Lady says that some carers in her constituency are being put off going to hospital by these charges, and her solution is to provide them with free parking, but what about the carers who do not have cars and go to hospital using other forms of transport? What are we going to do to help them? As soon as one introduces some sort of exemption, it creates a distortion in the marketplace.
In this debate, we have heard, if nothing else, how complex this issue is. One of the great benefits of Friday debates is that we are able to get down to the nitty-gritty of proposals like this, which, on the face of it, seem ever so attractive. I would not wish to criticise The Sun in any way, but sometimes it does not get down into enough of the detail and just goes for the broad-brush approach without looking at, in particular, the unintended consequences flowing from this sort of legislation.
The hon. Lady said that there is stress in parking in difficult situations, and so there is, but there is even greater stress if one cannot find anywhere to park at all. Many of my constituents have for years complained of a lack of parking facilities at Royal Bournemouth hospital. The hospital has been trying to increase its parking facilities but has encountered difficulties from the local council, which takes the view that creating more car parking spaces generates more traffic and therefore more congestion on the roads. The trust itself has invested a lot in improved car parking, and if the proposals to consolidate healthcare provision on the Royal Bournemouth site in Dorset go ahead, it will need a heck of a lot more car parking provision. It is by no means clear how that would be affordable unless the hospital itself is able to put in place funding arrangements so that the capital provision can be paid off through the income generated from charges. The hon. Lady’s speech raised some real issues that underline the Bill’s weakness.
I want to pick up on some of the points that have not been addressed. Clause 1 would provide a duty to exempt qualifying carers from hospital car parking charges, and clause 2(2) sets out the qualifying activities, including
“transporting, visiting or otherwise accompanying or facilitating a person to whom the care…is provided and who has been admitted to, or is attending, a health care facility for diagnosis, testing, treatment or other appointment relating to their health.”
It is very difficult to police such things. If somebody who was entitled to an exemption parked in the Royal Bournemouth car park and then, for part of their stay, went over to the Crown court, which is within easy walking distance and has a similar parking problem, how would that be policed? It would be policed only by having more personnel, who cost money, and that, as often happens, could result in confrontational situations. It is incumbent on the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper), to explain how that will be dealt with.
Mr Nuttall
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been helpful if we had been given an explanation of the costs of administering the proposed scheme? We could then have based this debate on some actual figures.
Mr Chope
The costs may vary from one hospital to another, but it is clear from the debate that the hon. Member for Burnley does not have the first clue about what the costs would be. We have established that they would be significant, but we have not established who would pay them. Would they be borne by the taxpayer through subventions to hospitals? The Scottish health boards were given £1.4 million to implement a similar policy.
If the money does not come from the taxpayer, would it come from increasing the charges of those who will continue to pay them? My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made some really good points about that. According to the Government’s guidance, they believe that concessions should be disbursed more widely than just to carers. The perverse and unintended consequence of the Bill—this would be inevitable, in my view—would be that higher charges would be borne by people who are worse-off. To take a topical example, a working family on tax credits may be a lot worse-off financially than a carer affected by this Bill, but they would have to pay higher charges to use the hospital car park. That is an example of the perversity of the Bill.
Mr Chope
I hear what the hon. Lady says. I will not go down that route, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we have had enough debate about tax credits and I do not think you want time taken up on them. My point is that many people less well-off than the carers exempted under the Bill will actually pay for the cost of such exemptions. Interestingly, the hon. Lady did not disagree with that point in her intervention, but that is one of the Bill’s perverse consequences.
There is another problem. Clause 1(1) states:
“providing bodies shall make arrangements to exempt…carers engaged in…the qualifying activities…from charges for parking their cars in spaces provided for service users at hospitals”.
It does not state by whom the spaces are provided.
Mr Nuttall
I apologise that I did not cover that point in more detail earlier. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The implication of the clause is surely that other car park providers may be affected, not just NHS hospitals that provide car parks.
Mr Chope
Exactly. Public bodies increasingly decide to delegate non-specialist responsibilities to other specialists; for example, they delegate to car parking companies the supply and building of car parking facilities close to a hospital. It is unclear from the clause to what extent the people providing the spaces—the spaces may not be provided directly by the hospital, but are designed to be used by those visiting it—will be caught by the provision. Their investment and their business plan may therefore be compromised by the Bill. The hon. Member for Burnley did not make that clear.
Perhaps that matter could be dealt with by amendments in Committee. Many other amendments have been suggested in this debate, particularly during the hon. Lady’s speech. She said that such matters could be dealt with by amendments, but a lot of them would not actually be within the scope of the Bill. That problem arises because the Bill is very narrow in scope. It proposes to exempt carers from hospital car parking charges and is for connected purposes, which seem to be centred around facilities similar to hospital car parks. It is very worrying that, even during this debate, the sponsor of the Bill has suggested that it is far from perfect and said that she would like to amend it. In fact, some of the amendments she has in mind would go beyond the Bill’s scope.
Clause 1(2) extends much further than national health service hospitals. There has not been much discussion of the other facilities mentioned in paragraph (a), such as a
“walk-in centre, GP practice or other health care facility to which patients are admitted, or which they attend, for diagnosis, testing, treatment or other appointment”.
Without exception, GP practices in my constituency provide free car parking for everybody. The last thing a GP practice wants is not to have the flexibility to respond to an increase in demand by introducing charges or restrictions. It is inherent in the clause that a qualifying carer who parks beyond the limit would be exempt. However, at a motorway service area, for example, if people stay for longer than two hours, they can no longer park for free and are subject to a charge. If GP surgeries, walk-in centres or other facilities are subjected to a lot of illegal parking—people taking advantage of their car parks but not using the facilities or using them for only a short time—they might choose to impose charges on people who are there for more than two hours. To what extent would people be exempt from those charges under the Bill? How difficult or easy would it be to enforce against them?
Mr Nuttall
My hon. Friend is touching on an important point that has not been covered this morning. We have blithely said that about 40% of hospitals do not charge at all. Given what he has just said, does he agree that the Bill would be likely to result in some of those hospitals being required to introduce charging or some other restriction?
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That brings home the point that this Bill has not really been thought through. To what extent has it been discussed with GP practices? I doubt whether it has been discussed with them at all.
If one wanted to bring forward a Bill under the private Members’ Bill procedure and give it a good chance of success, I would have thought that one would ensure that it was very narrowly focused, specific and precise. If the hon. Member for Burnley had discussed her Bill with me before she presented it, I would have given her the same advice that I have given to many other hon. Members from both sides of the House who have aspired to make progress with their Bills: it is better to have a small, modest measure that is carefully thought through than something that is general and easily open to different interpretations, which makes it unlikely to make progress.
On that theme, the inclusion in clause 1(2)(b) of private hospitals is completely absurd. Why do we want to drag private hospitals into the issue of whether to impose car parking charges on carers? I am happy to give way to the promoter of the Bill so that she can explain why she wanted to bring private hospitals into the Bill. Most of the discussion has been about NHS provision. Why does she want to interfere in the private sector? In my experience, most private hospitals do not have any charges for parking.
Mr Chope
Of course, it does not say that in the Bill. That is a point of detail that I am sure was just overlooked in the drafting. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that clearer.
The provision applies to
“car parking spaces provided directly or indirectly, including under contract, by or on behalf of a health care provider…for patients and other users to whom car parking charges would otherwise apply.”
Again, my submission is that that goes far too wide because it drags in contractual provisions in the private sector and could impose directly on hospitals that have contracted out by agreement to private providers. They might have said, “Please build this car park and provide spaces for our patients, and in return we will allow you to charge patients,” and a business plan will have been drawn up accordingly. Clause 1(3) would effectively drive a coach and horses through that contractual arrangement. It could result in a compensation bill being payable by the hospital concerned to the private provider because of a breach of contract. That is another example of why clause 1 is far too wide.
On clause 2, which is about qualification for the parking charge exemption, I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for explaining the number of people who have an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance. In my constituency, where there are a large number of pensioners, a significant number would be subject to the overlapping benefit rule and would therefore be included as carers under the Bill by reason of having an underlying entitlement.
The bigger problem is that the Bill would not help unpaid carers. The vast majority of the 6 million carers in this country do it voluntarily and do not get any help from the state or the taxpayer, yet the Bill would not help them at all. Indeed, it could perversely make them worse off.
Mr Nuttall
One point that we have not covered is that for some reason, under clause 5(1)(b), people who are caring as part of their voluntary work are specifically excluded.
Mr Chope
That is a very good observation by my hon. Friend, who always looks assiduously at the details. Perhaps the hon. Member for Burnley would like to intervene again to explain why those engaged in voluntary work are specifically excluded under clause 5(1). That problem shows that the hon. Lady needs to reconsider the Bill.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the first stab at getting a private Member’s Bill on the statute book often fails, but there is then an iterative process whereby somebody else is successful in the ballot and brings forward a revised Bill for the House to consider. I believe that Lord Steel’s Abortion Bill, which got the House’s approval, was the sixth iteration of that Bill. I wish the hon. Lady luck in improving her Bill, having considered the points that have been made, and perhaps bringing forward one in the next Session that meets the concerns that have been expressed today.
I have always been concerned about new bureaucratic burdens being placed on organisations, so I am particularly concerned about the job that local authorities would have to do under clause 5(1) and (2), which provide that there would have to be an assessment of
“whether a carer should be eligible for free hospital car parking.”
No criteria are set out for the basis on which such a decision would be made, and there is nothing about how long that process might take. People often need quick decisions, but there is nothing about that. Would there be an appeals system if an applicant believed that the wrong decision had been taken? That would add to the bureaucracy and administration, and the time taken to deal with cases. It would cut across the discretion that hospitals and other organisations have to decide on their own parking charges.
Let me refer briefly to what happens at a few hospitals in my locality, because it shows that current discretionary arrangements are full of common sense and enable individual hospitals and hospital trusts to meet the needs of their communities by using available local expertise and experience.
In Royal Bournemouth hospital, all blue badge holders pay to park, and the only exemption is for disabled blue badge holders with tax-exempt vehicles. That is in line with neighbouring hospitals and other local authorities, and reflects the fact that the Christchurch and Bournemouth area has a large number of blue badge holders. If they were all able to avoid paying to park, relatively few people would have to pay, but they would have to pay a lot more. Sensibly, the Royal Bournemouth hospital offers exemptions for certain visitors and patients, and can arrange exemption certificates for specific patients and their visitors. Surely that is sensible.
Poole hospital has a similar arrangement, and a seven-day parking permit costs £16—a reasonable charge considering that parking normally costs £9 a day. Hospital governors recognise that if those with a long-term need to use hospital car parks have to pay £40 or £50 a week—those are the sorts of figures we have heard—that is not reasonable. Poole hospital chooses to exercise the discretion available to it, which is sensible.
Southampton General hospital is further away, but it is used by my constituents who have severe heart conditions and need surgery that often involves a long spell in hospital. It has a system of free parking or transport for patients who receive certain benefits, and concessionary parking for patients who are receiving certain treatments. A patient can be eligible for free parking or transport if they receive income support, hold an NHS tax credit exemption card, or an HC2 or HC3 certificate, which is a low-income support scheme that covers prescription, dental and healthcare travel costs.
Such sensible arrangements rely on the principle of localism and the idea that the best people to decide on such matters are the local community. Much hospital provision in this country, and too much of the NHS, is far too centralised, and the Bill would further centralise and remove discretion from individual hospitals and healthcare providers. I know that the Bill sounds good and is superficially attractive, but when one looks below the surface one finds that it does not stand up to detailed scrutiny.
I hope that when he responds the Minister will clarify whether—this is on a par with the issue of free school meals—the Bill, if enacted, would have Barnett consequentials. Barnett consequentials are a cost to the taxpayer. There is already free provision in Scotland, and my constituents are already subsidising the Scots to the extent of £1,600 a head, but if my reading of the Barnett consequentials is correct, another hidden cost would be that Scotland would have to be paid more money from the national Exchequer to compensate for the fact that the Bill does not apply to Scotland. That is another example of why proposed legislation can often turn out to be a lot more complex than it might appear on the surface. I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to help on that point when he responds to the debate.
Mr Chope
That is obviously a matter for the House authorities, but the Bill is bound to cost taxpayers money and would therefore need a money resolution to proceed. It is possible to bring forward legislation which, although prima facie makes exemptions that impose costs on the taxpayer, contains compensating provisions to ensure that those costs are borne not by the taxpayer but by somebody else. It may be that the promoter of the Bill thinks we do not need to seek a money resolution because the costs arising from it will actually be borne by a lot of other people who do not yet know they will have to pay that cost.
I am not sure, however, who would meet the costs of the Barnett consequentials. I do not think there is any provision yet in statute to enable Barnett consequentials to be passed on in the form of higher car parking charges for users of hospital car parks. I am sure that that can be addressed in due course. I am sorry there is nobody here from Scotland today. I am a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which enables me to be briefed on issues relating to Barnett consequentials. I know hon. Members from Scotland are always keen for us to pass legislation in this House that would give them more money through the Barnett consequentials. I imagine that if they were here today and voting on this private Member’s Bill—although it extends only to England—they would be rather enthusiastic about it, because it might deliver some more money for them through the Barnett consequentials.
We all think that carers do a great job, but I am not sure that it is only the paid carers we need to think about. We need to think about the unpaid carers, and the Bill does nothing at all for them. It extends a lot of bureaucracy and interference to our already over-regulated hospitals and healthcare sector. It would inevitably impose additional costs on those who are not exempted under its provisions and add additional bureaucracy and administrative burdens.
In summation, the Bill contains elements that may well make progress in this House, but I would not be keen for it to make progress today. There is so much work that needs to be done on the Bill in its present form that the Committee stage would be far too prolonged. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burnley on introducing the Bill. She is a new Member and I am sure that in the coming years she will be able to perfect the Bill, so we can get something on the statute book that meets some of the concerns she has expressed in this debate.